Linux Must Be Laughable

Today, I found myself featured on the Linux Haters Blog. I've heard of this blog before, but didn't give it much thought, as most of the posts coming from the author are nothing more than Microsoft fan-boy fanaticism. It's hard to take any of the posts seriously. After reading his post regarding a couple of mine, I just thought to myself, "Oh, brother. Is this guy for real, or is he all about the press, leading many, many readers on?". I spent some time on the blog, digging through posts and comments, and I could find nothing intellectual stimulating conversation above "Linux SUX, Windows RULES!". So, this post is challenge the author to produce something intellectual that will actually show some logic behind his posts (and maybe the commentators behind their comments).

My challenge is a simple question: What does it take to make a stock Microsoft Windows install usable? Let's take a look, comparing a stock XP Professional install with an Ubuntu 8.04 install, and see who wins out.

First, let's look at the installer itself. I'm a system administrator, and I want to get XP and Ubuntu installed as quickly as possible on as many machines as possible. What flexibility do I have with the Windows XP Professional CD as far as meeting this need? Well, as far as I can see, I only have the CD to do the install. I have to sit through each screen by hand, clicking through the dialogs one by one until the install finishes. During this install, I am plagued with entering in a different serial number in each computer, unless I was able to purchase a multi-install key, which I still have to enter by hand on each machine. Because I'm limited to only optical media for my installation method, it will take about 45 minutes to complete a single install. Of course, most administrators would use some disk imaging software, like Norton Ghost, but that means I need to purchase a 3rd party utility to make this task successful. With Ubuntu however, I have the ability to install the operating system automatically using a few built-in utilities. Kickstart, Pressed and the hybrid Kickseed give me the ability to completely automate the install hands off. Further, Ubuntu gives me the ability to use repositories where the software for the operating system exists. I can access these repositories via HTTP, FTP or NFS. Just being on a 100baseT full switched network will be incredibly faster than CDROM. I can complete a fully Ubuntu 8.04 desktop install in less than 15 minutes-- on ALL machines.

Second, let's compare security on the operating systems. With Ubuntu, by default, if services are setup, they are only listening on the local interface, localhost. Coupled with AppArmor, I have a Mandatory Access Control system keeping my processes in check with my files. A default firewall is disabled, but can be enabled with the Netfilter kernel module, and built easily with the uncomplicated "ufw" command. Users created on the system are not administrators, so system-wide security vulnerabilities introduced through the user and highly improbable. Antivirus software, as well as software needed to remove malware, spyware, etc. is not needed, as the security design behind the operating system does not let this software grow beyond the user's home directory. Updates will most likely be waiting on first boot, to patch any security vulnerabilities and bugs with the system. Updates will be ongoing frequently throughout the time using Ubuntu. On the other hand, Windows XP has left me with absolutely nothing. No firewall software. No MAC software, although Vista with UAC addressed this. Newly created users on the system are administrators by default, so creating havoc on the box, and even the network, is as easy as getting online. The latest service pack will be waiting for me, and updates will be continuous throughout my use of XP. Windows has shown a bad track record with viruses and badware, yet on a default install, I'm left with nothing to guard myself. Sure, there are third party utilities to help me address these issues, but I will need to purchase them separately, and get them installed after XP finishes its install. Further, the default services are listening on all interfaces, making me vulnerable to an attack.

Now on to productivity software. After installing these machines, I need them ready for the corporate environment. I'll need email clients to synchronize with my backend servers, regardless of what they're running. I'll need office productivity software in the way of word processing and spreadsheets. I'll need PDF creators and viewers. I'll need a compressing utility, as well as encryption, due to the nature of sensitive emails. Instant messaging is a must for internal communication. With Ubuntu, OpenOffice.org is shipped and installed by default providing the employees the necessary tools to begin working. Evolution is provided for email communication, which gives me the ability to connect to POP3(s), IMAP(s) and Exchange servers. Ubuntu ships with Evince as the default PDF viewer, and a PDF "printer" is installed by default, giving me easy access to create PDFs. Three compression utilities, zip, gzip and bzip2, coupled with GNU tar, give me the ability to archive and compress anything on disk. GnuPG is installed by default for encrypting those sensitive emails. Lastly, Pidgin is my mult-protocol application for using instant messaging, giving me the ability to connect to Jabber, MSN, Yahoo, AIM, ICQ, Novell groupwise, and many, many others simultaneously. As for Windows, I have Notepad and Wordpad installed for my "word processing". There is no spreadsheet application installed. Outlook express is available as a minimal email client. There is no PDF creator or viewer. Zip is provided for compression, but no encryption application is installed. A Windows Messenger application is installed for instant messaging. Of course, many third party utilities can meet many of these needs, but none of them are provided by default

Lastly, the need for remote administration. Being a system administrator, I'll need the ability to connect remotely to each machine, and administer it as needed, whether stuff breaks, I need to install/remove software, or other administration tasks. XP Professional has given me the ability to utilize the RDP protocol through remote desktop. RDP uses encryption by default, however, due to the nature of XP, I can only login via RDP when the user on the other end has logged off. XP only allows a single user logged in at any given time. Unfortunately, however, there is no scripting language provided by the operating system, so writing simple scripts to automate tasks for me is not possible. Again, I can install plenty of third party utilities to meet these needs. On the other hand, Ubuntu has given me OpenSSH, which also does encryption by default. Further, because Ubuntu is a mult-user operating system, I can administer the machine while the user is still using it. Installed are several different scripting languages and compiled languages to make automating tasks a breeze. Perl, Python, BASH, C and C++ are all installed by default.

Looking at these comparisons, Ubuntu 8.04 comes well ahead as a usable desktop on a default install where Windows horribly fails. This recalls to mind the Mac and PC commercials. Remember the first commercial, where Mac and PC were "born" by being unboxed? Mac was ready for primetime, while PC had service pack updates to process, third party utilities to install, and security software to configure. It was going to be a while before PC could be on the same usable level as Mac out of the box. I'm seeing the same thing here.

After a default install, I could see several scenarios where a default install just wont meet my needs, but third party utilities will. Norton Ghost, Microsoft Office, McAfee Antivirus, Windows Defender, Lavasoft Adaware, Spybot Search and Destroy, PGP, PDF utilities, better IM client, scripting language, and so forth. The third party list for getting a usable Windows desktop gets long fairly quickly.

So, I guess Linux must be laughable. It sure isn't an operating system defective administrators would want to use. It just makes life too easy, both for the user and the administrator.

{ 85 } Comments

Seriously though, it's quite clear he's not a MS fanboy. In fact, I think the net effect of the Linux hater's blog will be positive. Often, the following Homer Simpson quote applies: 'It's funny cause it's true!' I'm not saying that writing such a blog is the most obvious contribution to free software, but at least he's good at what he's doing.

IMHO, this linux-haters blog is anything but a "Linux-hating" blog. The guy(s) obviously know their way around in Linux, pointing out subtle details in the OS and applications built on top of it. If they really hated linux, they would praise MS or Mac, and wouldn't bother at all running through the hoops of using it instead of keeping the good ol' Vista.

On your question "What does it take to make a stock Microsoft Windows install usable?", I'd say "Years, and they still didn't get it right".

On RDP administration under Windows - let's just say that I feel highly uncomfortable allowing this on any of my machines - I get enough "spam" in auth.log even on Linux. And don't even get me started on the default Windows Firewall..

Still, there are many areas where Windows is ahead of Linux. Simple GUIs for simple tasks come to mind. I had to use a PPPoE connection some time ago, and had hard time figuring out how to do it (pppoeconf is your friend). I don't mind using CLI, but do I have to go through it each time I want to connect to the internet? Why can't I configure it once, and then turn it on and off as I please, with a mouse click? Why NetworkManager does not have this as an option has always been beyond me - am I the only one using PPPoE these days?

Enough rants. Make no mistake, though - I might be confused with Linux peculiarities sometimes, I enjoy it 24/7.

Just a note before I start - I run Linux and I like it but I also see the problems. IMHO you got some points wrong looking at Windows. Maybe I am not completely right since I am no expert for Windows.

You can build custom Windows installations for free with tools like nLite. I have build 2 XP CDs for my notebooks and it's a pleasure to work with them. Insert and 30 minutes later the system is up and running with all drivers.
I don't know how this would work for large enterprises.

Setting up a stable and secure server seems to be possible with Windows 200x Server. Easy administration, exchange, firewall? Take a look at small business server.

Mails, Calendar, word processing? No problem - MS Office.
---

Of course it is a lot cheaper to setup Linux systems (desktop and server) but after I have seen how well everything is working if you only have MS in your network - and of course if you got administrators who know what they are doing - I can understand that some companies prefer Windows.

Well, first of all: I don't think the Linux-hater really is a hater. He more comes across as someone that wants the defects he notices to be fixed (I'm not saying he is right all the time though). In some cases it seems like he is trying to use a battering ram to open doors that were already open...meaning that the issues he brings up are sometimes, if not often, glaringly obvious (or should be) to those that have used Linux for a while.

Still, some of your information on Windows is out-of-date. This one for example:

"With Ubuntu however, I have the ability to install the operating system automatically using a few built-in utilities. Kickstart, Pressed and the hybrid Kickseed give me the ability to completely automate the install hands off."

Windows have had that ability since at least NT4. It is quite possible to set up a completely automated install with the tools shipped with XP Pro and/or the server editions. It takes a while to set up initially but certainly doable.

"Newly created users on the system are administrators by default"

Not anymore.

As far as spyware and the like goes...and the security model of Linux.

"as the security design behind the operating system does not let this software grow beyond the user’s home directory. "

Certainly true, but that is also the most valuable aspect of what's on the computer. The OS can be reinstalled should the worst happen. A worm wiping out /home/joe_user is IMO far worse of a disaster if your backup is out-of-date/damaged/not done.

I agree with the rest though. Ubuntu (or any modern Linux distro for that matter) is, at least for my needs, a lot more usable out-of-the-box than Windows. Then again, there are some places where we need to catch up too.

One more point to add to your list.
I was off for a whole year travelling. When I came back, I turned on my computer and Ubuntu showed up. It notified me that a new distribution was available as well as security updates. I performed the later first and was able to use my system without anymore application notifying me that a newer version was available online. I then decided to upgrade to the newer distribution, and though I hit a bug with the "locale", I quickly find the issue in the forums with the relevant bug report and work around.

Then, I decided to boot on Windows (I have XP Home). After booting, I was bombarded with dialog boxes or notification area "bubbles" from Logitech, Microsoft Defender, Microsoft update, Antivirus, Microsoft security thingy, Adobe flash, etc. And so much was redondant like the antivirus telling me my virus definition list is outdated, and then Microsoft security thingy turns red and it is telling me the same thing! And actually I was so much bombarded, that while trying to use my internet browser, I accidentally clicked on the "Cancel" button of an update (and lost the long awaited download) because those 3rd party tools developer on Windows seems to think that their application is the master piece of your system and should be shown at the front by all means! After the 3rd reboot, I was finally through the whole update process. But then I still had to upgrade to the SP3. And now I have also a problem, it takes about 5 minutes to shutdown Windows!! Well, I googled a bit (just like I did when the upgrade failed for Ubuntu 8.04, see above), but did not find anything. And as the system is truely opaque to solve those kinds of problem (no detailed log, or available means to display what is done during the shutdown process), I am stuck with going for a walk before I can reboot my system!

As a normal user, the update system is so much easier on Ubuntu 8.04 than Windows XP, a click and everything is updated. Even Mac OS X does not reach this level, as not all applications are using the Mac Update tool, but it comes close to Ubuntu.
As an advanced user, when you have a problem with Ubuntu or Windows, with Ubuntu you can find easily by googling or cruising forums what is going wrong and how to solve it. On Windows, it seems that I'm usually unlucky enough to never find the problem...

I am a passionate Linux user, and use Ubuntu every day for work, play, and learning. (Though I am posting from Mac OS X, I am by no means a supporter of it.)

However, I have to say that your third paragraph (which starts with "First, let’s look at the installer itself") is uninformed codswallop.

What flexibility do I have with the Windows XP Professional CD as far as meeting this need? Well, as far as I can see, I only have the CD to do the install.

Not strictly true. This is a bad start for my rebuttal, because I have to admit that the following is not possible with just Windows XP.

If you have Windows Server 2003, you can use Remote Installation Services to remotely install Windows XP via PXE boot.

Well, as far as I can see, I only have the CD to do the install. I have to sit through each screen by hand, clicking through the dialogs one by one until the install finishes.

Absolutely false. With just the tools shipped with the Windows XP CD (look in x:\tools\support.cab if I remember correctly), you can use a tool (generically called "Setup Manager") to generate .sif files, which are basically the same as kickstart or preseed files. Name the file winnt.sif, and put it on a floppy, or for a more modern approach, simply make a .iso of the Windows XP disc, place the winnt.sif file in the root of the CD, and burn.

You know, an "I'm feeling lucky" search on Google for "windows kickstart" (no quotes) will send you on the right path to get all this info.

During this install, I am plagued with entering in a different serial number in each computer, unless I was able to purchase a multi-install key, which I still have to enter by hand on each machine.

Well, with the unattended installation file that you can create in Setup Manager, you can enter in the product key so that it does not need to be entered. In fact, you can make the whole setup process free of all user interaction.

However, I see with regards to this:

entering in a different serial number in each computer

...if you are unfortunate enough to be deploying Windows XP without volume licensing, you wouldn't be able to automate the product key entering. But still, you can automate the rest of the process, which overall still makes it much faster.

With Ubuntu however, I have the ability to install the operating system automatically using a few built-in utilities. Kickstart, Pressed and the hybrid Kickseed give me the ability to completely automate the install hands off.

Kickstart? Don't make me laugh. Ubuntu's (or, rather, Debian's) port of Kickstart is shabby and missing features at best. Many of the options in the Kickstart creation dialog have no function, because they only work on Red Hat or Fedora-based distros.

I would also hardly call Kickstart "built-in". Windows XP's tool for creating unattended installation files is shipped on the original CD. With Kickstart, you have to download the utility from a repository via the Internet.

Preseeding is well integrated into Debian, but is not as smooth in Ubuntu. I think Ubuntu focuses their attention on the live CD installer (which is actually quite awesome in my opinion), which kind of leaves alternate installation methods in the dust.

I would hardly call preseeding "hands-off". Compare with Windows: Windows XP's Setup Manager is a graphical frontend that shows you nearly all the options you can use with unattended installations. Preseeders have no such fortune. I have to admit, though, putting a winnt.sif file on a floppy or CD is not the most user-friendly experience.

I have not used Kickseed much and don't know enough about it to talk about it, so I'll stop there.

Further, Ubuntu gives me the ability to use repositories where the software for the operating system exists. I can access these repositories via HTTP, FTP or NFS. Just being on a 100baseT full switched network will be incredibly faster than CDROM. I can complete a fully Ubuntu 8.04 desktop install in less than 15 minutes– on ALL machines.

I have to say, this is one area where Ubuntu really does excel. Indeed -- a 15 minute netinstall from a local apt cache is feasible -- or dare I say it -- the norm.

And thus ends my rant. I do tend to agree with you in paragraph 4 and beyond, but paragraph 3 is terribly misinformed.

I don't mean to make you feel bad. Because you are challenging the Linux Haters Blog, you would appreciate your own points being challenged, too. Embrace this comment and learn from it -- don't take offense to it.

They usually follow one of three paths:
1 - netboot and citrux server (much safer and you can easily play with the amount of liscences used; for example having fewer photoshop liscences )
2 - imagining of _harddrives_ (install once, then duplicate the harddrives) .. no not legal in the TOC
3 - just install every pc by hand ... windows system operators don't require _much_ skill hence they get paid about as much as the mailman .. Hence, nobody cares if it takes them two weeks to upgrade all 3000 workstations .... financially, it's irrelevant.

Aaron said:
>the operating system does not let this software grow beyond the user’s home directory

Vista does this as well, and it's WRONG. The user's home directory is where the files are we CARE about, The only purpose of all this is to prevent security breaches of user A to destroy the files of the user B.

Your whole security rant is ridiculus anyway. The 'hackability' of windows isn't that great and 99% of the people are running firewall .. definately every company. The other way software gets installed is through the STUPIDITY-PROTOCOL.

- There is less spyware and virusses _targetting_ linux.
- The users are on average _less dumb_
- There is _no_ technical reason that makes linux safer as a desktop-OS except for the fact it's difficult to make a normal program work on all different flavours of linux.

The whole security argument for the desktop is just utter [censored].
I'm sorry to put it like that.

The future lies in read-only operating systems, web-based storage with government/google/microsoft/isp provided blacklists of urls. Cuz they are going to click yes, to install that funny little game ..

Your attitude is akin to a janitor preferring McDonalds to 4 seasons, because McDonalds generates less garbage.

Your a sysadmin, so you're only looking at the world through your maintenance / janitorial job.
Nobody gives a [censored] about how easy it is to setup multiple machines, but rather, will they be able to get their job done once they are up. That's your job, that's what you, down there at the bottom of the IT food chain, next to Technical support.

Just to keep things straight:
Linux is [censored] for office use.
Linux is [censored] for development.
Linux is [censored] for CAD.
Linux is [censored] for accounting.
Linux is [censored] for Day Trade.
Linux is [censored] for medical applications.
Linux is [censored] for browsing the web.
Linux is [censored] for playing games.
Linux is [censored] for Instant messaging.
Linux is [censored] for educational software.

Linux is a mediocre OS, and a terrible, awful, useless workstation.

Now go lock yourself in your server farm, and you don't come back. No more. No more.

As a long time Linux-only user, I love Linux-haters blog. Calling it Microsoft-fanboyism is missing the point completely. You must have read it with some serious preconceptions fixed in your mind. Mind you, a lot of the commenters also make this mistake and so the comments often are actual haters.

LH is clearly someone who loves Linux, knows it in-and-out - the technical expertise and inside knowledge he displays is staggering, who uses this satirical form to point out things that clearly, doubtlessly needs fixing. I really wonder who he is - or if it's a collective, even - because it must be extremely few developers in the free software community that knows that much and in-depth about so many areas.

The style is cramped now and then, granted, but it is also often hilarious - and moreover, it's just about always CORRECT.

I'd take well-formulated, CONSTRUCTIVE (it is!) criticism thinly masked as "hate" any day over apologists that by their very denial hinders my favourite platform from becoming great.

Oh, and who cares if he gets ad money? Developers should stand in line taking notes either way, because the criticism is valid, to the point and accurate. Just not written as your usual bug report.

I don't think you are getting the point of the LinuxHater's Blog. I too am a long time Linux user and I treasure the comments even though I don't take them too seriously or personally.

Your rebuttal is redundant. We all agree and understand your point. There is no need to respond to the Blog Post. See the humour, satire, criticism and filter it and judge the merits if you wish, but it really serves no purpose. The blog highlights the Linux fanboyism as much as Windows / Mac. I suggest you read the comments and get some value from the blog. There is a kernel of truth on the blog if you open your eyes.

Regarding the fact that your blog post was singled out, my sympathies. Its like being in the audience at a standup comedy show and the comedian singles you out for a joke. Its painful, but hopefully you can appreciate the humour later.

I have four years experience running Linux on our desktops at home, but started using Windows XP at work last summer. Last month, I had to help rebuild a laptop whose hard drive failed. I had previously wondered why it took our IT guy (in another state) so long to build laptops when we needed one for a new employee.

Dell delivered the drive. In five minutes (maybe 10) I took out the failed drive, and installed the replacement drive. I was pretty impressed.

Then, it took over an hour or two for the laptop to unpack the operating system and install itself. And it had to be checked on a semi-regular basis to provide input. Then, I though we were done. No, another hour or two to download updates. Uh, Dell, why can't the updates be included as well on the harddrive for benefit of those on a slow connection?

I set up Outlook to do its thing and the employee was nominally productive again. However, our IT guy was still logging in remotely for the next day or so, doing various stuff to the laptop. Now granted, he was working remotely over a slow DSL connection on our side, but still

I install both our Ubuntu Linux systems at home with far less effort than getting this laptop set up. And one of them is a cranky, homebrew AMD64 machine.

I've decided that Windows is popular with corporate IT because it means a job for life.

There is one error in your argument, and one glaring omission. Windows XP has always included a firewall, though not usable until SP2 and still untrustworthy. This firewall, as originally implemented (and the entire operating system, for that matter), was not activated by default and was unable to adequately protect a computer long enough to get the necessary updates to continue to protect the computer. It was a one way firewall, until SP2, which made it a true software firewall and active by default, yet I still wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it.

As far as the omission, the update process for Windows requires you apply upgrades and patches, only to find that you need to apply later patches to that patch. Here are some examples:

1) You cannot install SP3, until after you have installed SP2, which you can only install after SP1 (if you have a pre-SP1 CD, like I do, you can see how annoying this is on a re-install).

2) Upgrading from IE 5.5 to 6 introduces a whole slew of patches to IE 6 that (as common sense would deditate) should be installed with the upgrade (this goes for WMP, as well).

3) The update process is long, almost always requires a reboot, and consumes hard drive space (unless you are savvy enough to find and delete all of the backup files, then purge the registry so your boot times don't suffer too drastically).

Since you have already addressed some differences between Linux and Windows, allow me to point out a difference between their users. Linux users spend most of their time using their computers, while Windows users spend most of their time and money trying to make their computers usable.

@Norman;

Hey fanboy, why don't you take your "FreeBSD for Dummies" operating system and your love of the Jim Jones-like cult known as Apple and (to quote the immortal Dick Cavett) fold it five ways and stick it where the sun don't shine. Apple is no better than Microsoft. Only you and the other butt-kissing Apple sycophants could expound on the glories of a product that is worse than the one that was all but stolen to make it. OS X is less secure than BSD, yet looks so pretty that you don't even care, because you get to be one of the cool kids. Pull your head out of your [censored], stop drinking Jobs' Kool-Aid, and try reading a book on the dangers of blind devotion to flawed ideologies.

Everyone- Let me first say that I'm not upset in the least about his post. I'm entirely okay with it. I can take criticism pretty well. Further, I have spent a great deal of time reading his posts. It seems he knows a bit about Linux, but mainly just feeds off of planets looking for criticisms to target. If he really hated Linux, and wanted to show why it's a bad operating system, then he wouldn't be using the posts of others as much as running it himself, and pointing out technical, not philosophical, problems. While a few of those do exist, I would expect to see more.

At any event, I do realize that I'm feeding the trolls. I issued a challenge, and I want to see a response.

1. Windows install CD supports scripting. Also, if you got Active Directory you also got a free tool to network boot the computers to install an image from a server. It's really easy (less than hour) to set up, and really works. You can also bundle all the updates and 3rd party applications that you wish while at it.

2. "On the other hand, Windows XP has left me with absolutely nothing." Name the on wild viruses and worms that can affect fully patched Windows XP? You can't, there are really none. The only real problem is the IE really nowadays. The firewall is enabled out of the box on XP (post SP2+) by the way. Being good *BSD stuff, it's pretty damned reliable, you should never need a 3rd party software for that. One good example is my wifey's computer. I set that XP up on 2004, and it's been there 24/7 on absolutely non-firewalled fast copper connection, with NO maintenance at all. Still clean, unbeatable, secure.

3. Funny that you mentioned corporate environments. How about showing me the Visio replacement (that doesn't get you laughed out of every meeting like Dia/Kivio do)? How about showing me zero-configuring email client, and instant messaging client? (You really don't want the support burden when you got more users.) By the way, Outlook is pretty good with S/MIME, which coincidentally is what many national ID cards use in conjuction with the card - with proper full-blown PKI. Talk about email security there. The usability of Office 2007 is some 5+ years ahead that of OOo.org's. Also, you whine about some applications not being included by default, and you talk about corporate setups.. Ding-dong, noticed your first item? How you install the desktops? Also, Active Directory supports mass roll-outs just fine. Make a new policy with the .msi, assign it to the groups, and ahh.. Voila, you just installed the application to 1-500 000 users. That's how corporate environments work.

4. Ok now you seriously have lost it. XP actually supports administrators being able to come to the same desktop session without throwing users out. Also, every Windows supports WMI and couple other really nice goodies. You can make an administrative payload and again mass-run it on thousands of computers quite easily. The interfaces made for vbscript for that are actually very very nice, and easy to use. You can also take practically any of the thousands ready-available maintenance tools (most of them come in source, and are free) that were originally designed for local computer.. And point them to an other one. Also, MMC is your friend, seriously. It's in proper hands like all the Linux centralized administration tools slapped into one, plus more.

Actually, you don't have to install many applications on the Windows like you claim. You just have to stop being [censored] clueless. I know you know a lot about Linux, but don't talk about Windows if you really haven't used it professionally, and trained to use it. Speaking like if you knew what you were talking about just makes you look bad.

(I'm a Linux user, and don't use Windows voluntarily. YET, I am man enough to admit that some areas of Linux are just plain [censored].)

I have been working in IT for the past 25 or so years, have more acronyms that I can put behind my name than I care to list for all sorts of Operating Systems, Applications, Hardware, etc.. spent 10 years as a network security officer, and have become agnostic when it comes to operating system choice.. I run a completely 'Windows-Free' home (OpenSUSE / Mac OSX).. My choice.. YMMV.

I look at the application or need I am trying to address and then choose the best tools for the job.. The corporate network for the company I work for is primarily comprised of 12 NetWare Servers (eDirectory and ZenWorks makes ADS look like an immature product. imho .) and Linux Servers.. There are 2 Windows based boxes on the network, Both because the best app for the job required it.

To each his own, each OS has its strengths and weaknesses.. and frankly, anyone participating in the venomous diatribe from either side of the argument, simply paints their argument as the rantings of an unprofessional, unqualified hack.

I also wanted to comment that I find it amusing that the linuxhaters blog is hosted on a Linux system.. If they truly hated it or thought it not 'worthy', you'd think they would drink their own Kool-Aid and find a Windows-Based Blog provider..

"Your whole security rant is ridiculous anyway. The ‘hackability’ of windows isn’t that great and 99% of the people are running firewall .. definitely every company. "

While working as a Penetration Tester for a Network Security VAR, I was amazed by what I found as far as Security on many large companies' networks. MANY have NO firewall, and I found a few that had Live Internet-routable addresses on every desktop and Servers.. Non-existent or just plain stupid passwords.. permanently or auto-logged in consoles.. insecure wireless access points... Scary...

And if that is how many companies' are, imagine the general residential user population... Scarier...

"The other way software gets installed is through the STUPIDITY-PROTOCOL."

This is why i don't want to get the task of reinstalling windows on all PC's at work since they all got a bunch of nasty viruses and most of the basic stuff doesn't works anymore (printing and office anyone? >_< ).

Above all, my boss asked some other guy she knew to do it, and that guy said he could reinstall but in 2 weeks they'll get viruses again.

Let's not talk about the low-end machines that choke having an anti virus and spyware/adware real time protection shields.

Makes me love my Kubuntu box even more. My guess is that most of the people won't use windows anymore within the next 2-3 years.
By the way, gaming on windows is beginning to die step by step since the main target now are gaming consoles (I'm not much of a state-of-the-art gamer but I'm considering buying a console myself).

While I luv ya man, I gotta say most of these comments are spot on. I don't run Windows if I don't have to, and I'm already familiar with its auto install abilities.

LHB brings out a lot of facts. The things they mention definitely need fixing. Not to mention the sheer craziness in the [censored] Linux "community".

The funny thing is that, each time he mentions one of you Ubuntu guys, yall go crazy for real bout the stuff he is spittin. Each and every time the comments on yens blogs say, look its satire and its factual, what's the gripe? But still yens post.

It's concerning that he would be accused of fanboydom (that's a sexist remark to begin with why not fanpersonism?), when the responses are more fannish then fact. It's seriously cultlike.

"Developers should stand in line taking notes either way, because the criticism is valid, to the point and accurate. Just not written as your usual bug report."

You're got to be [censored] kidding me. He's no genius; all this is known already! You should be praising him if he was single-handedly fixing all of this, not yapping - everyone is, and he's no special. Except that he covers everything in more or less one place, with a trendy tone, and attempts to sound like a genius.

Meneer R said:
> Mindcorrosive said:
> >am I the only one using PPPoE these days?
>
> Yes. Dail-up modems aren’t even sold anymore.

PPP is for more than dialup. Quite a few broadband ISPs use PPPoE (where "E" is for "ethernet") to authenticate hicap circuits. The broadband CPE acts as an ethernet bridge and the end user creates a PPP session with the access device on the far side. It's actually pretty slick and offers a number of advantages for the ISP. Don't expect it to ever disappear, not soon anyway.

at least the Linx Hater knows much more about Linux than you about Windows. Much of your argumentation is either 10-year-old information or just FUD.
One thing to add:
If MS would ship Windows with Office etc. people like you would scream because of monopoly issues. MS was already accused in Europe because they've bundled Windows with IE.

And his blog is so funny, because most of them is true. So be glad that someone is pointing to the issues Linux has.

I can argue myself into not needing Word and Powerpoint at home because what OO prdocues looks sometimes more or less the same and the pain is not much bigger (go vi) but using OO in a "corporate environment" is a bloddy mess.
I don't want to be the it guy arround wenn my boss comes and asks me why all his documents he sent someone or got from someone look completly different and unusable to the point where the other guys must be laughing so hard that they wonder if we wrote that in word95

As a Windows user trying his best to move away (I've been using Ubuntu VMWare installs everyday for the past 3 months) I have to say it's good to read something like Linux-hater. Whether intentionally or not whenever I try to improve my Linux skills via the community or self-help I end up feeling frustrated and stupid over things I feel to be obvious flaws and counter intuitive but are passed over by the experts (from my point of view only because they're used to the system rather than it being the best way of doing things). As such my impression is that Linux is only for clever people.

Unfortunately the fact is that when reading blogs I relate more to LH than I do ones like yours. In fact I couldn't get past the second paragraph before getting lost and missing the point you were trying to make. Ironically it's this lack of accessibility which is the whole problem with Linux, and LH both notes this and tackles it practically - although I may not agree with him on everything I do understand it because he writes for people who aren't superusers.

Perhaps LH is unfair and biased, but in a world where Linux is often made to look like a sliver bullet it's nice to be understood by someone who clearly knows what I'm going through.

Perhaps one day when I'm of the Linux elite I can scoff at him. Till then he's in my subs list.

Lets fix some misconceptions:
Linux is for not for smart people. It's for people who want to mess around with their system.
2. Linux is an epic failure. You keep comparing it to a 7 years old OS, and still fail. absolutely amazing.. almost a decade has passed, and Linux is yet to catch up on the basics. It's a waste of time. Move along.

Aaron, were I your employer, I'd fire you in an instant over this blog post. You're simply not qualified to do your job.

The problem with LH's blog isn't the blog itself. While the guy is a bit inflammatory, he does point out the problems in Linux. However, some of the commentors are obvious trolls, I usually ignore them.

Personally, I use Linux a lot, I like the OS, but you must admit, it does have serious problems blocking it from the Desktop. Some are not entirely of its own design - drivers not released by manufacturers, but others are.

It's good if Linux users stop looking at Linux if it was the OS to end all OSes, take a look at the other OSes, see what they do well (instead of denigrating them for using different licenses or for just being what they are), and try to beat them. Not copy them. Beat them. Impossible? Hardly. And try to standardise a little. That's another major problem. Stop re-inventing the wheel, do some compromises and join efforts. Zealotry must stop, now.

Have you heard of Remote Installation Service or Unattended Setup ? ... just put an windows XP CD and see the SUPPORT\TOOLS folder before you open your mouth. If you install all your machines with XP then you can sure go out with your girl every evening instead wasting time writing this [censored]. This post surely proves you are [censored].

It's a shame nobody cares about default installs. Users are way more concerned about what they can achieve with the system, and in that point, Windows wipes the floor with Ubuntu or any desktop Linux for that matter.

You see, the thing is Windows is exactly what an OS should be: a platform for others to build upon and to release their software for. Ubuntu includes all that software by default because there's no such thing as a platform in Linuxland. It's way, way more a sign of a serious and vital shortcoming than any advantage. It's a pity Linux enthusiasts are not able to recognize this fact after all these years.

really you should try harder LH got you squashed in like 10 minutes.
disccl: i love and use linux but my secretary IS NOT ready for it. it'd be better if you admit linux is not ready for the secretary desktop and try to figure it out than trying to defend it. we know what linux is good for and where its bad.,...

Aaargh! I can't stand that blog! Although it's probably satire, I just can't stand unfounded arguments. The stupidity of the commenters! Anyway, this is a good blog post, and actually I think you've beaten him.
A weird habit the defenders of Windows(fake or real) have is that every time you use a third-party application at Linux they say "Windows does that out of the box! Losers!", but when there is a functionality Linux has got out-of-the-box, whereas Windows needs a third-party application, they consider that as a valid argument.

First, let’s look at the installer itself: As many others pointed out, you are completely off base. The unattended install has been around since the NT days. Any IT guy worth his salt (in the scenario you described) would be using this procedure.

Second, let’s compare security on the operating systems: Linux definitely has the overwhelming edge here. However you are mistaken about a few items. 1) The firewall is enabled by default on XPSP2 and later. 2) I don't care whose OS you are running the software updater needs to be run. 3) Any IT guy worth his salt would not set the users up with admin rights. Again with unattended install, the local admin account can altered.

Now on to productivity software: Now this is completely STUPID. For years, everyone bitched at MS for including applications with the OS as a way of stifling competition and now you hold that against the OS! Linux users and FOSS has been holding this against MS from the start. This argument is screams hypocrite. If MS had everything on it that you stated, the FOSS community(as well as commercial equivalents) would be in a frenzy.

Just a note.... windows provides it's mmc (computer management) infrastructure which allows you to connect and do pretty much anything on the system to remote systems. Just run mmc.exe and select action -> connect to another computer, and type in the ip or hostname, login details, and suddenly you can do pretty much anything. I believe that the mmc system can have plugins as well so this can all be extended.

Speaking as someone who manages linux boxes for a living, this *rocks* compared to having to ssh in and do things for a lot of cases. I only discovered this functionality a few months ago, when I had to deal with a server room full of windows machines.

The folly of linux people is often bashing windows/mac/etc about problems that they have without knowing there are solutions already there. Like that windows has an update server type system where you can locally download patches from MS and then push them out to any number of windows boxes. Much easier than sshing into each ubuntu system and running apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade. I think RHEL provides something like this as well.

I'm all for linux and feeding trolls (and I love linux hater's blog), but people need to educate themselves about the systems they are bashing or criticizing (and I'm not talking about Aaron here, but more linux people in general) or else they come of just sounding like stupid little kids talking crap and really bring down the linux "community" on a whole.

Boy, anytime someone makes a cogent argument in favor of Linux all the trolls come out to feed. When one person makes a sensible argument and everyone else resorts to name calling and Linux sux comments it's clear they are threatened. They must know deep down that Linux is more than a passing fad. They must know that windows and osx while convenient operating systems have serious flaws. They must know that that Linux model of freedom will slowly chisel away at the proprietary world. Freedom is a scary thing and many people react negatively in support of fascism even when freedom is probably better for them.

Is Linux perfect? No. But neither is windows or osx. Is one better than the other? Yes - but that depends on your needs. Saying Linux sux and pointing to what doesn't work only proves that it doesn't fit your needs or that you simply lack the patience to change or the ability. Linux is perfect for me because I can do everything I want to and it doesn't cost me a dime. I flat out hate the windows and osx models. I can't stand dealing with all the issues involved with running windows (like dealing with AV and all other malware issues and surfing the web to find a app every time I have something I want to do, and on and on), and I hate the osx model of the apple way or the highway. Others love that and more power to them. For me, however, they both suck, period.

Seriously, if it takes this long to explain how you make Ubuntu useful something might not be quite ok here, like perhaps some usability issues?

Also you don't seem to be very knowledgeable in what windows can do. You can script the hell out of it (and not only c#, you can use ruby if you feel so inclinded). You can automate the install with MS provided tools, you can slipstream things in the windows installer so you don't have to work so hard to make it usable after that.

If you make an analysis make it fare and talk about what you know. And document yourself about what you don't. Don't spread FUD. Every time you spread FUD you kill a kittie.

I use linux, I wrote kernel drivers and user apps for linux, so there is no doubt about me being a MS fanboy. And neither is linuxhater. He didn't say anywhere that he supports windows and apple. You made that up and obviously don't understand enough about linux to understand his more technical posts.

PS. Get yourself informed. Read Stevey Yegge's blog (just to give an example). He shows how to write windows scripts in Ruby, or how to setup your favourite linux environment in windows with cygwin and emacs.

PS2. When you work remotely a lot the choice of the OS you use personally stops being a show-off of leetness and starts being a problem of taste. When you use emacs in windows like Stevey above does OS selection is like Coke vs Pepsi.

I always wince when I find a loud-mouthed open source advocate such as the OP who is so filled with stereotypical preconceptions and regurgitated propaganda. The amount of hypocrisy in Aaron's post is embarrassing to those who are actually interested in the future of F/OSS.

To Aaron: Please practice what you preach and learn how to use Google's search engine.

So many of your points start with (or include) "Because I am a system administrator" , or , "Being a system administrator" and I feel that you are losing site of the point that the LH is trying to make.

Most people are _not_ system administrators. They do not care about software freedom, they do not (ever) want to see a command line and they (really) want their programs to just work.

In order for that to happen, they need to install their operating system. Windows makes this easy, Ubuntu is getting there. Don't make the mistake of seeing a desktop machine as a server that happens to be running a window manager, many make that mistake and that's why Microsoft remains king of the desktop world.

As someone who writes software (yes, free software) I appreciate what the LH has to say. Why? Its not just him saying it, its a rather colorful summary of what _many_ people have to say.

I agree with the majority that the 'Linux Hater' is anything but. I use Linux as a server, but cannot recommend it to my friends as a desktop solution...at least not yet. There are too many issues that need worked out yet. Have you ever tried to install a program on Linux? If you have, it's clear it's nowhere near the simplicity of Windows program installation. If we are really being honest about it, Linux will never make prime time until package installation is on par with Windows. Additionally, Linux needs a way to easily run Windows apps. Sorry, WINE doesn't cut it. Once those issues are fixed, Linux will have a fighting chance.

"It seems he knows a bit about Linux, but mainly just feeds off of planets looking for criticisms to target."

Well, then you haven't read his blog careful enough. He knows a lot of Linux and if you read his blog careful enough, you will see, that he is not a Windows user, but a Mac OS X user. His critic is maybe very rude and harsh, but valid, though. The style he point to those things is probably just a way to stand out from the crowd. He doesn't just say Linux is crap, he points to the areas where the fish stinks, that means he actually still loves Linux, but he thinks it's nevertheless not useable at the moment...

okay there are lots of technical errors in this post. the first comment you made is inherently wrong. first off, any "system administrator" should know that you can make "hands off" installers. and about the serials?
why would you have a single use serial for a corporate environment? you get the multi-use key and make a hand's off install on multiple discs, then all you do is insert the disc in each PC and let the install run.
remote administration is also, by default, pre-installed on windows XP and vista. I could continue, but obviously your not the "system admin" that you claim to be, you learn these basics in any A+ or Cisco class, which obviously you have yet to take.

//I also wanted to comment that I find it amusing that the linuxhaters blog is hosted on a Linux system.. If they truly hated it or thought it not ‘worthy’, you’d think they would drink their own Kool-Aid and find a Windows-Based Blog provider..//

@Aaron:
Instead of wasting your time censoring the comments to get a family-friendly blog (your problems with the f-word are such a laugh), you'd better spend your time writing another blog post "Sorry linux hater obviously I was wrong and didn't make a point. Next time I'll try better."

Wow, just wow. I work at an almost all Windows campus and boy are yo uever wrong.
1) The unattended installer that is BUILT-IN to Windows XP allows you to set everything from system settings to autoadding to a domain to post install commands, and all from a plain text config file (Vista uses an XML file). Using Windows PE (free from Microsoft) you can boot from USB, cd/dvd-rom, or network to get to a stripped down "live" version of Windows which from the you can launch an over-the-network or from cd install of XP or Vista, which unattended over-the-network does not take all that long.
2) Linux's "security" comes from a lower userbase mostly, not an inherent nature. Virus have and do currently exist for Linux. In a corporate environment, using Active Directory, users are by default NOT administrators. As for firewall, good system admins know you don't use local client firewalls on ANY machine inside the network, no matter what OS. You use one or more HARDWARE firewalls to protect the network as a whole. SP2, as has already been mentioned, has its firewall on by default (another feature, btw, which is completely configurable in the WINNT.SIF unattend file).
3) Microsoft would include Office with Windows if people like you wouldn't stomp your feet and cry about monopolies every time Microsoft wants to add something.
4) As far as remote administration goes SMS (now SCCM) is your greatest friend. This simple tool, from Microsoft, integrates into the very useful mmc and allows all sorts of remote tracking, management, and software install (using built in Windows capabilities, it merely puts a different interface to them). As far as scripting languages, built in to XP are: VBScript, C#Script, JScript, and Batch scripting at least. We automatically push out all our software installs to our users with nothing more than batch and VBScript. Heck, using WINNT.SIF to allow a post install command and set number of automatic logins, we merely give a username and password to the machine to the domain and name the machine, everything else is scripted and automated (including updates) for every Windows install and are done seamlessly over the network.

So, really, before you speak on a topic, please at least be familiar with the subject your talking about.

"//I also wanted to comment that I find it amusing that the linuxhaters blog is hosted on a Linux system.. If they truly hated it or thought it not ‘worthy’, you’d think they would drink their own Kool-Aid and find a Windows-Based Blog provider..//

Unfortunately you made a complete fool out of yourself. Your complete lack of knowledge about windows makes your whole comparison worthless. The question remains tho, where do you get all those wrong impressions from? Maybe you have listened to the wrong FUD for too long?. Go check reality without mixing up technology and idealism and retrofitting your findings to your weltbild. Thanks.

BTW: There are a lot of *unix lovers* like you out there and they are the worst thing for unix ever.

I guess the biggest issue with Linux promoters (I admit I'm one of them) is, that most of them carry arguments, which 99% of the users just don't care. Sometimes it sounds like a commie speech...THAT is the reason why Linux sucks on the desktop. On the server, Linux is already king because the user base is totally different from the desktop user base. That said, as long as the developers don't code for the mass, but still for themselves and their likes, Linux will fail on the desktop for sure. Another mistake is the release current cycle. Distributors adopted the Microsoft approach, which is fine if you intend to sell software, but is certainly wrong if you distribute it for free. The distributors job would be testing new application releases and system improvements and release it by the time. No package-cycle is necessary for that. Radical changes can be tested in a test branch and integrated afterwards into the stable branch. Today, you create a dev-branch put in all the kinky stuff and polish it upon you think it's stable. The difference is the way it gets stable, today you take the unstable thing and make it stable, what's needed is, that you just improve and extend the stable branch with new things. That's a totally different world.

@Bobert- No, I won't be continuing this discussion further. The response issued by LHB is good. Solid arguments, and well executed. Further, LHB also proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, many of my arguments through the response. So, while you see "epic FAIL", I see success. However, at any event, I won't be responding in kind. First, I'm really not interested in a "Bible Bash", so to speak. Flame wars are annoying, and immature. Second, I have much better things to do with my time, then bicker back and forth about why one is better than the other and vice versa. As it stands, I will continue to keep LHB in my feed reader, as it provides valuable insight into Linux desktop usability (through other posts and various planets that is). This sort of criticism will make the Linux desktop stronger, so bad press, or good press, is still press, and Linux will be the ultimate benefactor.

Installation
-------------
Questions for you:
How many percent of the worlds population who uses Internet have access to a 100Mbit/s network?
Where can one find the "easy" command "ufw"? In some manual prolly, right?

"Kickstart, Pressed and the hybrid Kickseed".. WTF!? Unstable*, unstable, unstable. Not even a feature, more like a bug.

Security
-----------
Xp - No firewall software!? WTF? Yes there is, and if you don´t like it, install another. [..]listening on all interfaces.. - Modified truth. They do not listen on all interfaces by default, some do and they can easily be shut off. "After installing these machines, I need them ready for the corporate environment"??! Who says, maybe you are a 13-year old Colombian girl (probably so). Stop using your own scenario as default! Your whole argument is based upon a sysadmin/developer/IT-technician perspective. Like always with Linux you disregard the NORMAL users and that´s why you are loosing the battle.

Remote administration
-------------------------
Once again you selected something YOU need. You already use Linux so what is exactly your point? If you are aiming to be taken seriously, maybe you should try to explain how a normal user with no programming/administrator-experience can set up and use Linux successfully. That´s my challenge for you!

"both for the user and the administrator".. nope.. you have proven nothing about the USER, like always. What you have said is that if you are you, Linux is better. But you see, the rest of the world is not you. The main issue with Linux people is that they think everyone has the same experience as they do and that is the only thing you have proven with this post. Step out of your "Itworksforme"-box for once for christs sake...

LOL. O M F G!. You should really research WELL before you post your misguided comments on the internet. Then leave a comments section on it to. Lets point out your fails. Since you state in your comparison that his is a corporate environment lets roll on how the real IT boys do it.

[The rest of this comment has been removed due to the choice language chosen by this intellectual individual. I kept adding "[censored]" tags, but when I passed 20 of them, I realized that the comment just didn't make much sense anymore, and probably was best to just remove it. If you want to keep comments open here, let's try something novel and new: keep the language intellectual and semi-smart, so I can at least take you seriously. If you want respect, then act like it. Your fanboi comments aren't getting you anywhere, and belittling me or using foul language will just get your comment removed. So, let's try again, shall we?] -- The administrator

If word processing, email, chat, and remote access is all you need for a work environment you have quite a bit to learn.

A basic Linux system, workstation as some call it, is fantastic. Start dabbling into more specialty nor niche tasks and shits the bed.

If only more attention and manpower could be focused on the applications themselves instead of the hype campaigns of new distribution "features" and reinvention of half-baked wheels every couple years.

I've been a Linux admin for almost a decade all the while giving it a go on the desktop once in a while. To be honest I feel like I've been coming back to the same desktop over and over again for the last 8 years. It's almost as if Adobe was in charge. Why run Photoshop CS4 when 4 or 5 does just as well.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

Name

Email

Website

Comment

Wordpress Hashcash needs javascript to work, but your browser has javascript disabled. Your comment will be queued in Akismet!